R.V. Raveendran J. - (1.) These appeals by special leave are by the plaintiffs in a suit (O.S. No. 714 of 1982 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore City) for a declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of Sy. Nos. 30 and 31 of Jakkasandra Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
(2.) The case of plaintiffs in brief is as follows: Plaintiffs are the owners of a tank called "Maistry Kere" bearing Survey No. 30, (Old Survey No. 25) measuring 11 acres 21 guntas and land bearing Survey No. 31 (Old Survey No. 26) measuring 1 acre 9 guntas situate in Jakkasandra Village, described in the plaint schedule as items 1 and 2. The said tank and land were earlier part of Block No. 61 measuring 297 Acres 16 Guntas known as 'Dalavai Dinne', which belonged to their Great great grandfather - Kurakalu Venkataramana Maistry. That the said Venkataramana Maistry executed a deed of settlement dated 7.1.1874 (Ex. P.2) settling the said Dalavai Dinne upon his son Chikkahanumaiah. The said Dalavai Dinne identified as Block No. 61 was re-surveyed and allotted Re-Survey Nos. 16, 19, 20, 21, 23, 27 to 35. A portion of the said Dalavai Dinne measuring 102 acres was acquired for St. John's Medical College under final notification dated 30.4.1963. Another extent of 180 acres of land therein was acquired for forming of Koramangala Layout, under final notification dated 28.9.1965. After such acquisition, the appellants were left with only Survey Nos. 30 and 31 (suit schedule items 1 and 2 from out of the Dalavai Dinne) and they continued in possession thereof as owners. The documents trace their title for more than one and half centuries; and the suit properties have been owned and possessed by the family from around 1850, originally by Venkataramana Maistry, later his son Chikkahanumaiah, thereafter his son Kurakalu Ramaiah, thereafter his son B.M. Ramaiah, and finally the plaintiffs. When the City Improvement Trusts Board (predecessor of Bangalore Development Authority) attempted to interfere with their possession of Maistry Tank (Sy. No. 30), the first appellant filed a suit (OS No. 1 of 1976 in the Court of Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District later renumbered as OS No. 1305 of 1980 on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore) for a permanent injunction. However, subsequently the appellants filed a comprehensive suit -O.S. No. 714 of 1982, for a declaration of title and consequential injunction on 15.3.1982 against Government of Karnataka and Bangalore Development Authority in regard to Sy. Nos. 30 and 31. During the pendency of the second suit, the first suit for injunction was dismissed on 16.9.1985 and the appeal filed by the appellant against the said dismissal was also dismissed by the High Court on 20.12.1994, with an observation that anything stated in the said judgment with reference to the title to the suit land (Sy. No. 30) will not affect the pending suit for declaration of title in OS No. 714 of 1982.
(3.) The respondents resisted the said suit. According to them, Survey No. 30 was a government tank shown as Kharab land in the revenue records. Survey No. 31 was also government barren land shown as Government Kharab land in the revenue records. The appellants were neither the owners nor were they in possession of the said survey Nos. 30 and 31. On the said pleadings necessary issues relating to title, adverse possession, relief claimed were framed and parties went to trial. Both sides let in oral and documentary evidence. After appreciating the evidence, the trial court by its judgment dated 19.4.1996 decreed the suit. It held that the appellants had made out their title and possession in regard to the suit properties. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal and a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka by the impugned judgment dated 4.9.2007, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. The High Court held that the appellants had neither made out title nor possession in respect of the suit properties. The said judgment and decree is challenged in this appeal by special leave.;